Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 4,954)

Showing posts 99,061 - 99,080 of105,944
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104492
Nov 3, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>He has no honor and can't take personal responsibility. He can't say that he chose to behave the way he has. It is sad, because isn't stupid, he just chooses to behave that way.
I agree, at times he can actually be quite bright and sane. He will make valid points. He is not a bohart that is good only for comic relief, a susanblenge or whatever her name is or Jim Ryan that is totally off of their rocker, and usually he does not make the sort of mistakes that Maz does. Maz, in case you didn't know, actually will read evolution articles, which is good for her. She will almost always misinterpret them, which is what drives us nuts.

“Life is a learning highway”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

that too many get lost on

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104493
Nov 3, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't had the chance to introduce you two idiots yet.
Maz meet replaytime, he is a dishonest son of a bitch that will do anything rather than admit that he is wrong. He also will not play fairly. He thinks he gets to ask all of the questions and that no one can question him.
replaytime meet Maz, she is notorious for misinterpreting scientific articles. She often thinks that evidence for evolution is against evolution. It usually has to be explained to her about ten times before she gets a clue.
Still stuck on your name calling for that is all you have or will ever have. That is sad but yet funny. lol

“Happy New Year”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104494
Nov 3, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, at times he can actually be quite bright and sane. He will make valid points. He is not a bohart that is good only for comic relief, a susanblenge or whatever her name is or Jim Ryan that is totally off of their rocker, and usually he does not make the sort of mistakes that Maz does. Maz, in case you didn't know, actually will read evolution articles, which is good for her. She will almost always misinterpret them, which is what drives us nuts.
Yes, I remember that she does read papers on evolution. She beat that one on therapod footprints in Argentina to death. I am reminded also of the blue reference you use to make. It was very amusing.

I feel sorry for replay, but not enough to put up with his nonsense and lies.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104495
Nov 3, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Still stuck on your name calling for that is all you have or will ever have. That is sad but yet funny. lol
There was no name calling in that post. Only descriptions of you two. You really are have a hang up about your flaws. Rather than trying to deny them why not get rid of them by being honest? That is all it would take for you. When your brain is clear you are not a complete idiot like bohart. You don't always have to be an idiot replaytime. You are one of the few people that have a choice in this matter

“Happy New Year”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104496
Nov 3, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, at times he can actually be quite bright and sane. He will make valid points. He is not a bohart that is good only for comic relief, a susanblenge or whatever her name is or Jim Ryan that is totally off of their rocker, and usually he does not make the sort of mistakes that Maz does. Maz, in case you didn't know, actually will read evolution articles, which is good for her. She will almost always misinterpret them, which is what drives us nuts.
He often makes points that I agree with, but he has behaved so reprehensibly, I don't feel interested in following his arguments. You never know when it is going to turn into a pissing contest over some triviality or error he can't own up to.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104497
Nov 3, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am not jumping to any conclusion. My conclusion is shared by the evolutionary researchers quoted. If you would like to contest that conclusion perhaps you could also provide some empirical research of your own, to support your opinion.
See!
"Abstract
The assumption that all life on Earth today shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry is part of the paradigm of modern biology. This paper argues that there is little theoretical or empirical support for this widely held assumption."
Regardless of your opinion, the research clearly falsifies the current evolutionary paradigm, yet again, and supports the claim that there are no common ancestors between man and microbe.
I was not arguing with the conclusions of the researchers.

I was arguing with YOUR strawman argument that this falsifies evolution.

Logic is a stranger to creationists, I have noticed. You are no better.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104498
Nov 3, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also up to you to have faith in TOE regardless of all evidence against it.
Pity you cannot find any. That's OK, just keep assuring everyone its there. Just like God.
If all life that arises on earth, has similar genomic structure and can share dna,

then common ancestry between ape and chimp is an assumption you choose to believe.
One does not follow from the other. More creationist "logic" I presume.

And we do not "assume" humans and chimps have a common ancestor. The fossil and genomic evidence points to it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104499
Nov 3, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
That has nothing to do with the point I made.
It has everything to do with the point you made.

The earliest life might have evolved more than once and convergence in the genome could have occurred by gene swapping. Even bacteria today swap plasmids. Or there could have been a very early common protocell ancestor.

We don't know. But any of these scenarios are plausible and therefore the archaea / bacteria split is not evidence against evolution.
"Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of “humanness” versus “chimpness.”“There isn’t one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms,” Gagneux adds."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...
http://watchmenservices.info/New%20Folder/Hum...
Are you now suggesting this evolutionary researcher above does not know what he is talking about, but you do????????
So different methods of assessing differences in the complex genome of humans and chimps can yield different results. Why should that surprise anyone?

The salient point is comparative, not absolute. The human genome is more similar to a chimp's than to any other genome by virtually any consistently used method.

And there appear to be no barriers in the transition of one to the other. Plus a pile of fossil evidence of the intermediate forms that showed it happened. Plus the genomic evidence in ubiquitous proteins, ERV's, and pseudogenes, each severally and independently confirming the nested hierarchy of evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104500
Nov 3, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Very clearly you are evading the point I am making and doing a poor job at it. I'll make this as simple for you as I can.
If 'primitive cells' could transfer DNA (HGT) between themselves, then the genomic structures of all 'primitive cells' was compatable and similar?
Please refute the above claim with more than your opinion, evasion, ridicule and tail chasing.
Yes, for once your conclusion follows your premise.

However, when we are talking very basic, possibly proto-cells, one need not assume a high level of specialisation and therefore not a high barrier for compatibility. Its perfectly possible - in fact more probable than not - that early parts of living systems developed independently and literally converged (RNA, metabolic machinery, etc). We don't know yet - but once again, nothing you present suggests it could not happen.

We see the same pattern repeated at a higher level later in the transition of prokaryote to eukaryote.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104501
Nov 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that a fact? The word for circle and ball were different words. Hmmmmm
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TIP...
The old circle and ball argument.

All I can say is that when the Bible was Boss and there were scholars who spent lifetimes deciphering the Bible (rather than looking at the real world), they were sure enough that the Bible said the world is flat that they were willing to put men to the fire for saying otherwise.

In this instance they had no political or material gain to be made for making one claim over the other. They just thought the Bible was the ultimate authority and had to be right and to be followed for the safety of men's souls.

So if they thought that it was unambiguous on the point, I would defer to them. The Bible says the world is flat, according to the most intense and committed research on the subject by those who did not have the benefit of reading what they "wanted" into it.

Revisionism and the desperate search for passages that could be interpreted differently came later - when they had no choice.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104502
Nov 3, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>So if I traveled east to west at a rate of one rotation per 24 hrs, would I stay young forever?
Are you disputing the scientific or geographical statement? Is science a piece of shit according to you?

“Life is a learning highway”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

that too many get lost on

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104503
Nov 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The old circle and ball argument.
All I can say is that when the Bible was Boss and there were scholars who spent lifetimes deciphering the Bible (rather than looking at the real world), they were sure enough that the Bible said the world is flat that they were willing to put men to the fire for saying otherwise.
In this instance they had no political or material gain to be made for making one claim over the other. They just thought the Bible was the ultimate authority and had to be right and to be followed for the safety of men's souls.
So if they thought that it was unambiguous on the point, I would defer to them. The Bible says the world is flat, according to the most intense and committed research on the subject by those who did not have the benefit of reading what they "wanted" into it.
Revisionism and the desperate search for passages that could be interpreted differently came later - when they had no choice.
Chimney you shouldn't be talking to me. Sub says he is pretty sure(doubts) that you and I get along. So you need to refrain from commenting to me. I would hate to show him he is wrong. Nuff said! Have a good one.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104504
Nov 3, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>So if I traveled east to west at a rate of one rotation per 24 hrs, would I stay young forever?
So, science is lying?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104505
Nov 3, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>So if I traveled east to west at a rate of one rotation per 24 hrs, would I stay young forever?
So, from your premise, science is the bloody liar?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104506
Nov 3, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney you shouldn't be talking to me. Sub says he is pretty sure(doubts) that you and I get along. So you need to refrain from commenting to me. I would hate to show him he is wrong. Nuff said! Have a good one.
I have to admit that I often pass over the Replaytime / Subduction Zone bits seeing as you two spend most of your time at each other's throats.

SZ says a lot of good things - when you haven't sucked him into a cockfight. All part of the fun I guess.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104507
Nov 3, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
GMT or UT are assigned times by man. Using man assigned times you can make it the same time at any two locations across the globe. Using solar time it can never be the same time in London as it is in New York.
Thanks,

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104508
Nov 3, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are you disputing the scientific or geographical statement? Is science a piece of shit according to you?
I have to applaud you again on being by far the most accurate, insightful, and logical representative on Topix for the Creationist viewpoint.

Well done.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104509
Nov 3, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
I know when Maz disappeared all I thought was good riddance of bad rubbish. I did not go from site to site looking for her. She may have been at other sites here during her absence, she may not have been. I pretty much stick to this little corner of Topix with occasional rare excursions to Offbeat or Atheist forums.
Perhaps she just tests everything she learned at Bob Jones University between semesters. Always arrives with a roar. Always leaves with a whimper.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104510
Nov 3, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don’t know either, then why the fook did you bring it up? Sounds like stupidity to me
Thanks to replaytime. I was even applying man made concepts to judge that. You are always wrong.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104511
Nov 3, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that is human imagination, not reality, nothing is actually lost.
I have tried to explain this concept to you before using the example of whales swimming across the date line and it seems that attempt could not get past your ignorance based filtering system
So here is a little experiment, set your watch to some arbitrary and obvious time, say 5:37 and some arbitrary date, say 1st November 2013. Now cross the date line and look at your watch. You will notice that the date has not changes, just your imagination of the date has changed.
That watch is a mechanical or electronic device and not subject to the vagaries of imagination and guess what, it does not imagine…
What about the sun( solar system)?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 99,061 - 99,080 of105,944
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••